The works of the founder of the states, law givers tyrant destroyers and
Heroes cover but narrow spaces, and endure but for a little time, while
the Work of the inventor though of less pomp is felt everywhere and last
forever. (Francis Bacon).

A PATENT is an exclusive right granted to a person who invented a new
article or an improvement of an existing article or a new process of
making an article. It consists of an exclusive right to manufacture the
new article invented or manufacture an article according to the invented
process for a limited period.

Object of Patent Law:

The object of granting a patent is to encourage and develop a new
technology and industry. An inventor may disclose the new invention only
if he is rewarded, otherwise he may work it secretly. Thus the theory upon
which the patent system is based upon is that the opportunity of acquiring
exclusive rights in an invention stimulates technical progress in four
ways:
• that it encourages research and invention
• that it induces an inventor to disclose his discoveries instead of
keeping them as trade secret;
• that it offers the reward for the expenses of developing invention to
the stage at which they are commercially practicable; and
• that it provides an inducement to invest capital in new lines of
production which might not appear profitable if many competing producers
embark on them simultaneously;

Value of Patent System:

Some controversy exists as to precise extent of the contributions made by
the patent system to the economic development of a country. But the
adoption of some kind of the patent production for inventions in all most
all countries, and the ever increasing number of applications for patents
received by the patent offices in all industrially advanced countries is
an indication of the universal recognition of the value of the patent
system. Most of the inventions and discoveries made in technology in all
fields are published in the patents specifications field in the patent
offices of different countries. A world wide exchange of technical
information has been made possible only by the publications of such patent
specifications.

International character

In a sense patents have assumed an international character. The increasing
number of applications for Patents from foreigners received in almost all
countries in recognition of fact. Attempts are being made from time to
time by international associations for the protection of individual
property and to introduce more and more uniformity and harmonization among
national Patents systems. The International convention for the Protection
of Industrial property (Paris Convention) and GATT and TRIPS agreement are
examples of attempts at harmonization of the law of patents & other forms
intellectual property.

Main Provisions Associated With Trips Agreement

The TRIPS consistent Indian patent law addressed three important issues
relating to patent of products:
i) Adoption of definition of “pharmaceutical substance”;
ii) Exclusion of “mere discovery of a new form of known substance” and
“new use for a known substance”; and
(iii) Protecting the interests of those who are already producing the
products which may be granted patent protection in the new regime.

The patent regime adopted in TRIPS by the developed countries is somehow
of the capitalists nature and it prioritizes the profit motive over the
social responsibilities. In continuation to these discrepancies, TRIPS
also rule out any discrimination between the technological sectors and
advocates the same protection for all the technological inventions
fulfilling the criteria.

Even after the acceptance of the TRIPS agreement, the following five major
areas still controversial for both the parties to the trips:
1) IPRs and access to medicines,
2) IPRs, community property rights and indigenous knowledge,
3) IPRs and biodiversity,
4) IPRs, biotechnology and agriculture,
5) IPR policy and trade.

There is no doubt that “product patent regime” have spurred the R&D for
diseases- notably, those with the lucrative potential market in the
industrialized world. However, TRIPs has failed and will continue to fail
to stimulate sufficient R&D for diseases that primarily affect poor
countries. TRIPs had forced all the developing countries to switch over to
product patent regime from process patent regime and hence, restrict the
access of the cost effective essential medicines to their people.

Challenges to patent regime in India

India enjoys several strengths amongst others developing and least
developing countries, particularly, in case of the production of the food
grains and drugs, and proudly hosts world cheapest pharma industries. Even
with these impressive facts, one billion Indians, spend the same amount on
medical drugs per year as seven million men and women in Switzerland. The
amount spent on drugs here in India roughly corresponds to the profit made
by a single pharma MNC “Novartis” in a typical year. These figures are
enough to reflect the dying conditions of the public health services in
India. It is now almost a well established fact that TRIPs provisions have
already started affecting a person’s human right to access health services
(India and the WTO)

HIV/AIDS alone have caused death of about 3 million people in 2002,
including 60000 children. Around 5 million new patients were victimized by
it. Around 95% of the 42 million AIDS victims are the people living in
developing countries. Only 3 lakh of the 60 lakh advance stage patients of
HIV have access to life saving medicines in third world countries. These
figures and facts are clearly indicating the adverse effects of TRIPS
Provisions in the form of restriction on access to essential medicines to
the poor people and diminishing possibilities of introduction of new drugs
for their diseases.

The Indian Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 (The Act ) introduced product
Patents in India and marked the beginning of a new patent regime aimed at
protecting the
Intellectual property rights of patent holders. The Act was in fulfilment
of India’s
Commitment to World Trade Organization (WTO) on matters relating to
Agreement on
Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement).

As part of its WTO-TRIPS regime obligations under Articles 70.8 and 70.9,
India created the "mail-box" to withhold patent applications which had
pharmaceutical products as a subject-matter. What was unveiled as a
provisional measure was the transitional system of "Exclusive Marketing
Rights" to ensure the interests of domestic manufacturers who mainly
survived on off patenting and reverse engineering of patent able bulk
drugs and formulations for a long time. In the last years of the regime,
grant of two major yet controversial EMR's to Novartis and Eli Lily showed
how the entire system shook up the domestic manufacturer who waged a
litigative battle in response to the first simulation of the post-product
patent industry scenario in India. This not only lay threadbare as to how
the grant mechanism was liberal, draconian and absolutist in the eyes of
the Indian manufacturer. The focus which the policy makers lost in
connecting quality control regulations with grant process of marketing
rights was the bureaucratic red tape surrounding the operation of
provisions in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the way clinical
trials were conducted in India

Litigation Battle: Novartis Sues India

The letter and spirit in which India transitioned into the new patent
regime has been put to litmus test by Novartis which sued India with the
institution of a writ Petition before the High Court of Judicature at
Madras. Several countries praised India’s contribution to life saving
drugs and requested Novartis not to challenge. However, Novartis filed its
case with Indian court at Chennai and sought patentability of its product
Gleevac filed under EMR provisions on the grounds alleging:

(i) illegality in procedure adopted and also the text of 3(d) of The Act
which was in violation of Article 27(1) and 27(2) of TRIPS Agreement;
(ii) arbitrariness by the Controller General of Patents & Designs, Chennai
and ignoring rationality underlying Articles 253 and 51(c) of the Indian
Constitution whereby national laws are required to be harmonized with
International treaties;
(iii) Provision relating to discovery of “new form” contained in 3(d) is
illogical and against the concept of patents which encourages innovation
and Intervention by rewarding the person associated with such acts
beneficial for society;
(iv) Deliberate incorporation after approval of its product Gleevac under
the earlier prevailing EMR provisions resulted in disturbing the level
playing field laid under the Act in compliance with conditionality under
TRIPS Agreement.

The Technical Expert Group on Patent Law Issues with Mr. Mashelkar as it’s
Chairman (Mashelkar Committee ) submitted its report to the Government of
India on its
terms of reference which favoured incremental modifications / innovations
for qualifying for the grant of patent as New Chemical Entities (NCE).Several
NGOs opposed the case filed by Novartis and urged the doctors and medical
professionals to boycott its products in India. The Indian court rejected
the plea of Novartis on patent of Gleevac for violation of TRIPS
Agreement. This patent case is considered to be a threat to developing
nations and the treatment of AIDS patients will be seriously impaired if
Novartis ultimately succeeds in obtaining favourable award on its patent
matter from the Higher courts in India.

Revival of Yoga and Impact of Baba Ramdev

Baba Ramdev revived Pranayama which acts as the best medicine involving
rhythmic control of breath through bodily exercises and awakens divine
powers essential for curing disease and enabling creation of "Disease Free
Society - Medicines Free World". Yoga Pranayama & the Ayurvedic & Herbal
medicines used at Baba Ramdev’s Yoga camps have scientifically proved to
provide cure for most of the diseases including: (i) control & cure of
HIV/AIDS by improving the CD4 (T-helper lymphocytes) cell count of the
people affected by AIDS; (ii) control and cure of cancer; (iii) Diabetes;
(iv) hypertension; and (v) depression.
Baba Ramdev’s increasing popularity and the immense pressure exerted by
the powerful global pharma lobby has made India seriously consider
revising: The Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Drugs and Magic Remedies
Act, so that good men like Baba Ramdev are prevented from claiming that
Indian traditional medicine can cure diseases like HIV / AIDS, cancer,
diabetes, high blood pressure etc. The Health Ministry issued notices to
over 80 organizations including the high-profile ashram of Baba Ramdev and
also instructed them to stop claiming curing serious diseases like AIDS
and cancer.

Generic Pharmaceutical Manufacturing

1. When the mailbox applications are cleared and patents awarded,
newly-introduced generics in the Indian market may have to be withdrawn.
This, for example, is why Indian brands of “Tadalafil” have disappeared
from the shelves. And, newer antipsychotic, antidepressant, antiepileptic
and other drugs will be permitted to be marketed only by the patent
holder. Costs to the patient will then inevitably rise.
2. New drugs that emerge in the international arena will be available to
Indian patients only from the patent holder. Again, the cost is almost
certain to be high.
Rise in Drug Prices and Access to Medicines for the Poor.

While discussing the post-2005 Healthcare scenario, one of the major
concerns among all stakeholders is the issue of the impact of the emerging
product patent regime on drug prices in India and other developing
countries, which did not permit patenting of drugs per se under their
earlier legislations. The general impression is that drugs which are under
patents are expensive compared to generic products and once the product
patent regime is in place, they will be unaffordable to the majority of
Countries of the developing world and as a consequence their healthcare
status will be seriously affected. High prices of patented drugs affect
not only the patients in developing countries, but also in the developed
world.

Based on these premises, it would therefore appear that if Society wants
new and better life-saving drugs, the price to pay for that would be
unaffordable to most of the patients who need them. Even for the
pharmaceutical Companies, the costs for R&D on New Drugs have been
accepted as unaffordable, under their present structure, leading to a
spate of mergers and acquisitions during the last two decades, Some recent
studies indicate that such a strategy is also not paying off, partly
since, the larger the Corporation, the greater the challenge to remain
creative, make decisions and cut down the gestation period for moving R&D
programmes from concept to the market.

Competition from China

Indian pharmaceutical industry is expected to face competition from the
Chinese pharmaceutical industry as China is known for its cheap
manufacturing capabilities.

Chinese government has introduced several initiatives in providing boost
to its pharmaceutical industry and there are trends indicating increased
investments by global MNCs. The advantages of Chinese pharmaceutical
industry to that of Indian pharmaceutical industry include: (i) better
data protection mechanism; (ii) favourable domestic pricing issues; (iii)
Chinese government’s strong commitment to pro-industry policies; and (iv)
existence of a strong patent regime. More than 20 major MNC pharmaceutical
companies have already established their manufacturing and R&D facilities
in China and are also associated with carrying out drug discovery and
Phase I-II clinical trials related activities . MNCs like Sanofi Aventis,
Merck etc., are likely to establish R&D facility in China. The case ruling
against Novartis is expected to change the plans of the Swiss pharma giant
who may seriously consider reorienting its investment plans in India that
may benefit China with its increased investments in Pharmaceutical
business.

New Initiatives and Measures for Protection and Promotion

The several initiatives and measures taken by the Indian government for
providing the required support, boost and encouragement for Indian
pharmaceutical industry include: (i) permitting 100 % Foreign Direct
Investment (FDI) for manufacture of drugs and pharmaceuticals provided the
activity does not attract compulsory licensing or involve use of
recombinant DNA technology and specific cell / tissue targeted
formulations; (ii) tax incentives under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for
in-house R&D.; (iii) life saving vaccines exempted from excise duty; (iv)
clinical trial of new drugs exempted from service tax to make India a
preferred destination for drug testing; (v) anti-AIDS drugs and life
saving vaccines exempted from excise duty to encourage companies like
Cipla; (vi) all drugs and materials used in clinical trails to be provided
customs and excise duty exemption; (vii) companies in knowledge-based
pharmaceutical business to be provided equity support; (viii) customs duty
reduced to 5% on 10 anti-AIDS and 14 anti-cancer drugs; and (xix) duty on
certain life saving drugs, kits and equipment reduced and such drugs are
also exempted from excise duty and countervailing duty.

Conclusion
The new patent regime in India touched the hornets’ nest and has raised
several contentious issues relating to right to health of the people,
which is in conflict with the economic right of patent holders. It is also
likely to restrict access of allopathic medicines to only the affluent,
affordable and more privileged class of people in India and other
countries in the immediate future. The institutions associated with
enforcement and protection of right to health of human beings whilst
upholding the rights of patent holders are faced with the daunting task
and challenge of devising ways and means for fulfilling their defined,
designed and desired roles so that the conflict in rights pertaining to
rights of intellectual property owners and the right to health of human
beings is minimized whilst balancing the prevailing hierarchy of human
rights for achieving the social and economic objectives.

Endnotes
1.( India and the WTO: The Development Agenda by: Deepika M.G)
2. available at http://www.patentoffice.nic.in/ipr/patent/patent_2005.pdf
3. Patent Regime In India: Sashi Sharma.
4. Novartis AG vs. Union of India and others.WP no.24749 of 2006 filed
before H.C of Madras
5. (Available at www.swamiramdevyoga.com)
6. ( Available at Indian journal of Psychiatry)
7. (Impact of new Patent Regime and price. By. Dr.M.D Nair)